The
report included research on 48 countries conducted by more than 300
scientists using 700 weather stations. According to the report, the
year's 2000 to 2009 were warmer than the 1990's, and the 1990's were
warmer than the 1980's. In addition, each consecutive year from 2000
to 2009 was hotter than the year before.

Since
the 1960's, there has been an average surface air temperature rise of
0.6 degrees. While this may seem small, the scientists
noticed warming
climate effects in the increased sea level and humidity,
declining glaciers, snow and sea ice and increased lower atmospheric
and land temperatures. Signs of warming has also been found as far as
two kilometers down below surface in the oceans, since, according to
the report, 90 percent of warming has been absorbed by the Earth's
oceans.

"Don't
be fooled by anyone telling you that global warming is caused by the
urban heat island effect or problems with thermometers - the
satellite data don't suffer from these issues," said Neville
Nicholls, president of the Australian Meteorological and
Oceanographic Society. Nicholls also noted that since the satellite
record began in 1979, the warming trend has been "identical"
for thermometer and satellite data.

Australia,
in particular, was hit by three noteworthy heat waves in 2009. These
occurred in the months of January, August and November. January's
heat wave claimed
hundreds of lives due to the heat and brushfires. August's
broke heat records, and November's caused the city of Adelaide to
witness eight consecutive days above 35 degrees.

While
warming continues to show its presence, cold spells are still
expected to arise occasionally, but not often, according to the
report.

"The
mid-Atlantic coast of the U.S. was extremely cold and snowy,"
the report stated. "At the same time, other regions were
unusually warm and the globe as a whole had one of the warmest
winters on record."

While
this new report from the NOAA represents their firm
stand on the side of global warming,not
all scientists are pro warming. According to a report from
the Canada Free Press, 31,486 Americans with science degrees (9,029
PhD, 7,157 MS, 2,586 MD and DVM and 12,714 BS or equivalent) have
"signed on" with the Global Warming Petition Project, which
sends the message that "the human-caused global warming
hypothesis is without scientific validity."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Here's a great argument for why the global temperatures rising is unnatural:http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c... (From David MacKay's (University of Cambridge Physics professor) book, "Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air".)Start at the bottom, "The climate-change motivation."Here's a small excerpt:

"We start with the fact that carbon dioxide concentrations are rising. Figure 1.4 shows measurements of the CO2 concentration in the air from the year 1000AD to the present. Some “sceptics” have asserted that the recent increase in CO2 concentration is a natural phenomenon. Does “sceptic” mean “a person who has not even glanced at the data”? Don’t you think, just possibly, something may have happened between 1800AD and 2000AD? Something that was not part of the natural processes present in the preceding thousand years?Something did happen, and it was called the Industrial Revolution."

It is my great hope that after this read you will be convinced that human development has initiated global warming.

Tell me then, when David MacKay states that a "skeptic" is "a person who has not even glanced at the data" did he ignore the entire 1970's cooling cycle when analyzing manmade global warming? You know, back when a family sedan gave off 100 times more CO2 than a Hummer? Back when coal made up 90+% of our energy supply? Back when scientists were telling us that we were entering a new ice age?

I'll entertain this dope smoking hippie professor's opinion when he stops insulting those who would argue against it.

Well my question would be; What initiated global warming after all of the past Ice Ages? Man was not here to do it, so I guess it was the dinosaurs, oops they died during the ice ages, or well before the ice age, so I guess it was the mammoths, but they died during the ice ages also so it wasn't them.

Well I'm all out of ideas what caused the warming after the ice ages, seems everything was dead except the sun.

Weather changes, changes to the chemical layout of the atmosphere, etc.

For instance, the last Ice Age was caused due to Antartica and South America still being joined together, preventing the warm waters of the Atlantic from interacting with the Pacific, which caused a cooling feedback loop. The Ice Age ended when Antartica and South America split up. In short: Weather patterns have a major effect on global temperatures.

Likewise, previous warming cycles have been connected to changes in the layout of the earths atmosphere. In particular, theres a great deal of coverage between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures...

Weather changes, changes to the chemical layout of the atmosphere, etc.

For instance, the last Ice Age was caused due to Antartica and South America still being joined together, preventing the warm waters of the Atlantic from interacting with the Pacific, which caused a cooling feedback loop. The Ice Age ended when Antartica and South America split up. In short: Weather patterns have a major effect on global temperatures.

Likewise, previous warming cycles have been connected to changes in the layout of the earths atmosphere. In particular, theres a great deal of coverage between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures...

I think it is funny that anyone can stand firmly on one side of this issue or the other at all. We have been on this earth for such a short amount of time. The planet may have destroyed and rebuilt itself hundreds or thousands of times before humans or this generation of humans existed.

So there was a cold snap in the 70's. This does not mean people are wrong about the earth warming now. Maybe the cold snap in the 70's would have been much worse if there had not been so much man made CO2 in the atmosphere at the time. Maybe the man made CO2 caused the normal cooling and warming cycle to be disrupted and we needed to have a small ice age to avoid a severe warming. Maybe we are not affecting the earth as much as we think and the cooling and warming would have taken place regardless of human intervention.

No matter what the cause scientists from all over the world using sophisticated equipment have discovered that for the last 30 years average temperatures have been going up. I don't know what that means but I know that we should prepare for warmer climates globally or at least have some sort of plan b in case things to get much warmer.

"I think it is funny that anyone can stand firmly on one side of this issue or the other at all. We have been on this earth for such a short amount of time."Yes, it is true we have been on this earth for such a short amount of time. But do you know what happened in an even shorter amount of time? CO2 levels growing at an exponential rate in the past 200 years after over 1000 years of zero growth.http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c...

Burning oil is bad? How so? There are some that believe that it is the only worth-while contribution humanity can make to the future of the world. Burning oil releases carbon. All life (that I know of, could be wrong) on the planet is carbon-based. Carbon is a finite resource. We are freeing it from its rocky tomb (you like that? I'm a poet!) making it more available for living organisms to use.

Saying that burning oil is bad is like saying chocolate is bad. Just because your mother (or Al Gore) told you it is so, doesn't make it so. Chocolate is a very nutrient dense food with lots of happy vitamins and minerals. Oil is dark like chocolate... need I say more?

Well the unexplained fact they never want to discuss is that 8 times greater CO2 concentration in the past. The simple fact that when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere existed we also had one of the highest growth rates for plants and not a total global meltdown killing all life on earth that their models say will happen at levels 2 times what they are now.

If doubling or tripling the levels of CO2 will cause the world to turn into deserts and the oceans to cover most of the land mass, then why did it not do that when the levels were many many times more that the supposed critical level in the models now?

Maybe the CO2 levels increasing and warmer temperatures in the last 200 years coincide with the industrial revolution because the warmer temperatures allowed man to be more productive with his time instead of spending most of it trying to gather food and fuel to survive the long hard winters. Just something to ponder.

One possibility is that global conditions were different in general, the location of the continents was completely different, air/sea currents were different. Who can say what effect that would had? I agree, the current predictions that doubling CO2 levels will kill everything is likely wrong as I think there are too many variables involved but I don't agree that comparing it to a different situation from millions of years ago is proof of this.

This is what I have been saying for a while now. There are just too many variables to consider to place one above all others as causing changes in climate. Solar output varies, our orbit varies slightly, heck it was even shown that after the earth quake in Haiti and Chile that the rotational period of the earth changed minutely. Now with a study pointing to soot being stronger at warming than CO2, what else are we not seeing that can cause it. How much do we know about warming periods after ice ages in ancient times to say wether or not temps will rise quickly or slowly? One article this year even pointed out that tree rings do not necessarily grow faster in warmer years but seem to also be dependant on the levels of cosmic radiation. Who knows, what we are experiencing now may be perfectly normal and yet we are trying to stop it.

Reduce pollution for the sake of a cleaner world, reduce energy usage for the sake of saving money and prolonging our supplies. It has been warmer in the past, it will be warmer in the future even if man disappeared from the face of the earth today. We need to learn how to adapt to the changes more than worry about our tiny contribution if any to the changes.

Wrong conclusion. For one, its a known fact that weather patterns were significantly different in the past. For example, Dinosaurs didn't need to worry about coastal flooding overruning the world centers of commerce. Likewise, with so much plant life, the sustained warmer temperatures wouldn't have had a major effect on the food chain. [The opposite is true now, especially considering we already have a food supply problem...]

quote: If doubling or tripling the levels of CO2 will cause the world to turn into deserts and the oceans to cover most of the land mass, then why did it not do that when the levels were many many times more that the supposed critical level in the models now?

Different weather patterns. Remember, the geology of the contenints is totally different now, and the land/ocean layout plays a significant role in global weather patterns.

We've also had several ice ages and other climate changes since then ... do you think humanity (as we know it) could survive another? Not saying a thinning of the herd wouldn't be good ... I just think it's already too cold where I live ...

I too believe that this AGW stuff is nonsense; but I recognize that a little proactive ass-covering is called for just in case Florida disappears under the waves. So what I've done is construct my argument in such a way that regardless of what global temps do, I can never be wrong. (You might object that this is the position taken by most of us AGW deniers, but I think I deserve credit for putting it all in black and white.) Here it is:

In any case, I think it's our duty not only to expose the lie of AGW, we also need to explain why practically every climate scientists on the planet is deliberately deceiving the public. I mean, this is serious stuff! I can think of no other instance where the vast majority of the professionals in any scientific discipline have set out to deliberately and maliciously spread obvious lies. So either all these PhD's and technicians are too dumb to see what is obvious to non-scientist, casual web surfers like us, or there is a vast conspiracy to delude mankind. I know that greed plays a role here, but surely, given the extent of the fraud, something more sinister is going on!

Your argument would be valid if the States was all there is in the entire world. Back then there was only the USA, USSR, UK, France and Germany. The rest of the countries didn´t really have industries. The list of countries going through that era of Industrial Revolution right know is huge. I am pretty sure the CO2 emissions right know are much higher.

I've always wondered why the skeptics and outright deniers like to conveniently ignore the possibility of our 4+ decades research, outreach, and the education into the issue, thus implementing more sustainable, more intelligent fuel use and emission complements over that time period, and simply ponder "hey, maybe the fact that WE DID IMPROVE over this time period, we've actually seen the trend adapt."

Amazing. Since the skeptics like to claim that they are "intelligent thinkers," I wonder when they will actually get around to the intelligent part (considering all variables)...

What.. how do I have a zero rating so soon after posting? No one who rated my post could have possibly read all of what was in the link I provided. Probably just assumed my "small excerpt" was the entire argument.

Anyway, regarding the cattle, it is important to note that it's NOT just about the inflows of greenhouse gases! Typically, natural inflows (for example, a huge amount from the ocean) are equally balance by natural outflows. The result is a relatively constant level of CO2 concentration, as evident in any history CO2 concentration study.The problem with unnatural inflows of CO2 (for example by burning fossil fuels) is there is nothing to cancel it out with. The result is an imbalance of inflows and outflows, with the former severely outweighing the latter.

Nowhere did I state a time frame for the constant level of CO2. You also apparently did not click on the link I provided in my first post either. Here it is, the data which shows a relatively constant level of CO2 from 100AD all the way through 1769.http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c...

I think you missed the point. Scientists tell us that the atmostphere used to have 10x the concentration of CO2 (you know, all the CO2 that's trapped in the form of oil) compared to today, and life THRIVED under these conditions. Nobody's claiming that it's not warming. We're just not convinced that it's a bad thing. Many of us aren't convinced that the CO2 concentration has a huge influence on global temperatures either (but instead it's minor). It seems that it was 'better' for life on this planet back then, so why would it be 'worse' this time around?